Talk:Hovander Homestead Park

tag bombing
The article was tag-bombed with notice as follows: "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) I removed all the tags with ping to the "ruinator" as I called them in my edit summary; my removal was reverted by them.
 * This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (May 2019)
 * This article possibly contains original research. (May 2019)
 * This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (May 2019)
 * This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (May 2019)
 * Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (May 2019)
 * This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (May 2019)"

I dispute all of the negative tagging. Note the article was improved by a reference being added, inbetween the tagging and my removal of the tags. E.g. What the heck is thought to be original research. E.g. what weasel words, where?

I will pause for discussion, but expect to re-remove all the tags otherwise. --Doncram (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The final section is mostly fluff that reads in a promotional manner. There are all sorts of little pieces in the rest of the prose (e.g. "new ideas are tried out each year" and "incredibly large space with a massively high ceiling") that absolutely do not conform to project guidelines on tone and style. The excessive detail tag is pretty easy to see, and the use of an offline "research manual" is highly suspect and hard to verify. I stand by my tag-bombing because readers should be warned about what they are reading and that it is not up to the basic quality expected on Wikipedia.  Sounder Bruce  00:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The article reads fine to me. Absolutely no problem in the intro, before the table of contents, right?  Seems objective, professional, establishes importance, seems like part of Wikipedia's best work, this article should get an award IMO.
 * And, umm, every single sentence has an inline citation, including that "new ideas are tried out each year". It is cited to a an offline source and page number.  I believe the assertion that it is supported there.  You have not consulted the source, right?
 * --Doncram (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * About the "incredibly large space with a massively high ceiling", that could be an accurate summary/reporting upon the source. It does look to me, from its photo, that the barn could have a massive internal space. See Gothic-arch barn, an article to which I contributed a lot, including co-earning a DYK for, about the value of having a big open space.  Hey, I am sure that you meant well in negatively tagging this article, but to me it seems offhand more like you are personally unfamiliar with this kind of topic and that you reacted superficially.  Hard to say, exactly, without online access to that source, but I tend to believe in sources like that from my general experience with similar ones in my writing about historic places in the U.S., and I am guessing you don't have that kind of experience. In absence of proof one way or the other, I think it is best/fair and actual practice to wp:AGF and defer to the contributor. --Doncram (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think the article is much stronger since SounderBruce's edit of it. And I would like to see more details in the refs. "Cyr, Hovander Homestead Research Manual" is meaningless to me, I don't know who "Cyr" is or in what form it was published or by whom or where I could track down a copy, and it is the support for the majority of the article. Nor do I understand all of the refs that just say "see note ##". Where are these notes? Where is the Jacoby interview published? I think this is a fascinating article, but it demands blind faith on the part of the reader because it provides so little opportunity for anyone to confirm or explore the sources. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

questions on sources
, could you provide some details on your sources?


 * 1) Where is the "Jacoby, Jill, Hovander Park Ranger, interview, March 2, 2019" published?
 * 2) What agency published "Cyr, Hovander Homestead Research Manual" and where is it available to the public?
 * 3) You have a number of citations that only say "see note ##". What book or document are these notes referring to?

Thanks! Schazjmd  (talk)  14:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just noticed that it's been nearly three months since Jadzden edited, so they might not return to answer any questions. With the date of the interview being March 2, 2019, I suspect Jadzden literally interviewed the ranger (i.e., spoke to) and that won't be a reliable source. I'll try to ref some of the content to the nomination doc, but it's much less thorough than I'm used to so it won't help with the bulk of the article. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)